This opinion is subject to
further editing.If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official
Reports.

A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals.SeeWis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.

Appeal No.

2012AP1317-CR

Cir. Ct. No.2010CF2457

STATE OF WISCONSIN

IN COURT OF
APPEALS

DISTRICT I

State of Wisconsin,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

Stacy Bernard Campbell,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL
from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:glenn
h. yamahiro, Judge.Affirmed.

Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.

¶1PER CURIAM. Stacy Bernard Campbell
appeals a judgment convicting him of one count of first-degree sexual assault
of a child under the age of twelve and two counts of first-degree sexual
assault of a child under the age of thirteen.He also appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction
relief.Campbell argues that he received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel.We affirm.

¶2To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel, a defendant must show both that his lawyer’s performance was deficient
and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984).To prove deficient
performance, a defendant must show that his lawyer’s acts or omissions were not
reasonable under prevailing professional norms.Id. at 688.To prove
prejudice, a “defendant must show that there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the
result of the proceeding would have been different.”Id. at 694.

¶3Campbell argues that his trial lawyer provided ineffective
assistance of counsel because he failed to present evidence of acrimony between
Campbell and the victim’s mother. Campbell
contends his lawyer should have sought admission at trial of letters the
victim’s mother wrote to him while he was being held in the county jail prior
to the accusations in this case.Campbell
contends that the letters would have shown that the victim’s mother was distraught
that he was no longer living with her family and, therefore, had a motive to retaliate
against him by pressuring her daughter to fabricate sexual assault allegations
against him when he did not return to live with her after his release from jail.

¶4The record establishes that Campbell’s lawyer made a
reasonable strategic decision not to seek admission of the letters.During cross-examination of a police officer
who investigated the sexual assaults, Campbell’s lawyer referred to the letters
when he asked the officer how the victim felt about the fact that Campbell was
no longer living with the family.Campbell’s
lawyer explained in a side bar that he wanted to use the officer’s knowledge
about the letters to elicit testimony showing that the victim was upset that
Campbell was no longer living with the family.The prosecutor objected to the questions unless the letters were going to
be admitted into evidence.Campbell’s
lawyer told the court that he did not want the letters admitted because they
would show that the reason Campbell had left the family was because he had been
put in jail.Campbell’s lawyer then
limited his line of questioning so that the letters would not be admitted.

¶5“An appellate court will not second-guess a trial attorney’s
‘considered selection of trial tactics or the exercise of a professional
judgment in the face of alternatives that have been weighed by trial counsel.’”State v. Elm, 201 Wis. 2d 452, 464,
549 N.W.2d 471 (Ct. App. 1996) (citation omitted).In fact, “strategic choices made after
thorough investigation of [the] law and facts relevant to plausible options are
virtually unchallengable.”Strickland,
466 U.S. at 690.“Even decisions made
with less than a thorough investigation may be sustained if reasonable, given
the strong presumption of effective assistance and deference to strategic
decisions.”State v. Balliette, 2011
WI 79, ¶26, 336 Wis. 2d 358, 805 N.W.2d 334.

¶6Campbell’s lawyer made a strategic decision not to seek
admission of the letters because he did not want the jury to know that Campbell
was in jail for criminal activity unrelated to the current charges for fear
that the information would negatively influence the jury’s opinion of Campbell.Campbell’s lawyer considered the pros and
cons of the jury seeing the letters and made a reasonable decision about how to
proceed in a manner that would best further his client’s interests.Because Campbell’s lawyer’s actions were part
of a reasoned trial strategy, we reject Campbell’s assertion that his attorney
performed deficiently in failing to seek admission of the letters.Moreover, Campbell cannot show prejudice.In the letters, the victim’s mother expresses
how much she and the children miss Campbell, but she also repeatedly and
emphatically admonishes Campbell for failing to financially contribute to the
household when he was living with them, and warns Campbell that he is not
welcome to return unless he changes his ways.At best, the letters show that the victim’s mother was ambivalent about
Campbell returning to her home.They do
not support Campbell’s contention that the victim’s mother was so distraught by
his absence that she had a motive to coax her daughter into falsely accusing Campbell.Therefore, there is no reasonable probability that, had the letters been admitted, the
result of the trial would have been different.